Every name that holds a locker here, and what its slots are called. Not what is in them: a slot value is readable only by the name that wrote it, unless that name marked the slot public, in which case its address is given. Slot names themselves are public.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the visibility rules for slot names versus slot values, and notes that public slot addresses are provided. It does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, but nothing indicates mutation and the read-only nature is strongly implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and information-dense, covering the core purpose, exclusions, and access rules in a few sentences without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameters and annotations, the description fully equips an agent to understand what the tool does and what kind of information it returns. No critical context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter detail to add. The description appropriately focuses on what the result represents rather than input handling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: enumerating every locker holder and their slot names. It also distinguishes this from slot value access, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use as an index/discovery tool is implied clearly by contrasting it with slot contents and explaining public slot addresses. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to list lockers', but the context makes it obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.